Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728956 --- Comment #32 from Mario Blättermann <mario.blaettermann@xxxxxxxxx> --- Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5366174 $ rpmlint -i -v * php-virt-control.i686: I: checking php-virt-control.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libvirt -> liberty The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. php-virt-control.i686: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.0.3 ['0.0.3-1.fc20', '0.0.3-1'] The latest entry in %changelog contains a version identifier that is not coherent with the epoch:version-release tuple of the package. php-virt-control.i686: I: checking-url http://www.php-virt-control.org (timeout 10 seconds) php-virt-control.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/apache-key-copy php-virt-control.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary apache-key-copy Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. php-virt-control.i686: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/php-virt-control-0.0.3/INSTALL A file whose name suggests that it contains installation instructions is included in the package. Such instructions are often not relevant for already installed packages; if this is the case for this file and it does not contain any information that is of interest after the package has been built and installed, do not include the file in the binary package. php-virt-control.src: I: checking php-virt-control.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libvirt -> liberty The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. php-virt-control.src: I: checking-url http://www.php-virt-control.org (timeout 10 seconds) php-virt-control.src:27: W: macro-in-comment %{summary} There is a unescaped macro after a shell style comment in the specfile. Macros are expanded everywhere, so check if it can cause a problem in this case and escape the macro with another leading % if appropriate. php-virt-control.src: W: no-%build-section The spec file does not contain a %build section. Even if some packages don't directly need it, section markers may be overridden in rpm's configuration to provide additional "under the hood" functionality, such as injection of automatic -debuginfo subpackages. Add the section, even if empty. php-virt-control.src: I: checking-url http://www.php-virt-control.org/download/php-virt-control-0.0.3.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) php-virt-control.src: W: file-size-mismatch php-virt-control-0.0.3.tar.gz = 139067, http://www.php-virt-control.org/download/php-virt-control-0.0.3.tar.gz = 133890 The size of the file in the package does not match the size indicated by peeking at its URL. Verify that the file in the package has the intended contents. php-virt-control.x86_64: I: checking php-virt-control.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libvirt -> liberty The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. php-virt-control.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.0.3 ['0.0.3-1.fc20', '0.0.3-1'] The latest entry in %changelog contains a version identifier that is not coherent with the epoch:version-release tuple of the package. php-virt-control.x86_64: I: checking-url http://www.php-virt-control.org (timeout 10 seconds) php-virt-control.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/apache-key-copy php-virt-control.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary apache-key-copy Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. php-virt-control.x86_64: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/php-virt-control-0.0.3/INSTALL A file whose name suggests that it contains installation instructions is included in the package. Such instructions are often not relevant for already installed packages; if this is the case for this file and it does not contain any information that is of interest after the package has been built and installed, do not include the file in the binary package. php-virt-control.spec:27: W: macro-in-comment %{summary} There is a unescaped macro after a shell style comment in the specfile. Macros are expanded everywhere, so check if it can cause a problem in this case and escape the macro with another leading % if appropriate. php-virt-control.spec: W: no-%build-section The spec file does not contain a %build section. Even if some packages don't directly need it, section markers may be overridden in rpm's configuration to provide additional "under the hood" functionality, such as injection of automatic -debuginfo subpackages. Add the section, even if empty. php-virt-control.spec: I: checking-url http://www.php-virt-control.org/download/php-virt-control-0.0.3.tar.gz (timeout 10 seconds) 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 16 warnings. The spelling error can be safely ignored. Please drop INSTALL from the docs, it's senseless to ship general installation instructions within a rpm package. Moreover, you don't use the described autoconf/automake stuff to build the package anyway. Although it wouldn't change anything for the time being, please add an empty %build section. The release number is missing from your latest changelog entry. What about the differing file sizes of the original and the packaged tarball? What happened here? The files must not differ, and unless you are packaging a VCS checkout, the checksums have to be identical. One runtime requirement is redundant and can be dropped: httpd (needed by php) Your package contains mostly pure PHP code, there's just one file which is not arch-independent. I propose to provide a -common package which contains all the PHP stuff, the configuration and doc files and so on, and this has to be "BuildArch: noarch". Then, the main package remains with the file /usr/bin/apache-key-copy only. php-virt-control.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/apache-key-copy This needs to be investigated. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=jsHauES0wn&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review